54 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION The State Pensions Act 1995 has one legitimate aim! 32. The majority limit themselves to accepting that the State Pensions Act 1995 pursued at least one legitimate aim, “namely the protection of the country’s economic system” (see paragraph 86 of the judgment). Interestingly, they cannot avoid the reference to the context of restoration of independence and the break-up of the USSR, despite stating earlier that reference to this context is misconceived in the present case. Naturally, since the legitimate aim is narrowed down to the protection of the country’s economic system, the assessment of the proportionality of the means employed is quite simply different from what one could expect if the relevant international-law context were taken into consideration. This assessment has no connection whatsoever to the realities, the tasks and the aims that the independent Latvian authorities had to face when building a modern independent State in a post-conflict context. 33. In any event, even in accordance with the Court’s case-law, States have a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to rebuilding or reforming their economic systems. Surely the margin should be taken seriously in a case where a State as such re-emerges on the world map. Does the distinction drawn amount to discrimination? 34. The majority consider that there are no weighty reasons for the distinction based on nationality essentially for the following reasons. Firstly, the applicant was in an objectively similar situation to persons who had an identical or similar career but who, after 1991, were recognised as Latvian citizens. Secondly, there is no evidence that during Soviet times there were any differences in treatment between Soviet nationals as regards pensions – in other words, the Soviet social tax was paid and administered in the same way for all employees. Thirdly, the applicant does not have any other nationality. Her closest ties are with Latvia, “which, objectively, can assume responsibility for her in terms of social security” (see paragraph 88 of the judgment and point 31 above). 35. I fail to see how these assumptions prove as a matter of law that a distinction was not justified. It is equally unclear to me why the majority find that the Soviet context is more relevant to their assessment of the proportionality of the distinction. It was not the alleged equality of all Soviet citizens on the basis of which the Latvian State Pensions Act was passed. First of all, I find that the majority contradict themselves in referring to some alleged facts from the Soviet past despite having just said that the explanations by the Government as to the legal context characterising Latvia during that period were irrelevant. In the absence of any explanation as to the choice of the relevant context, I find that decision to be arbitrary. Secondly, the majority confirm my earlier point that it is impossible to